SA21 E: Aguas, Baltao, Lao, Luna, Martin, Pastor, Uy

1. What norm did you violate?

We violated the norm that people must use cubicle stalls in public restrooms alone. In this experiment, we compare the reactions of both men and women seeing two people enter a cubicle at the same time. Whereas it is not unheard of for women to share cubicle stalls at times, this is considered especially strange for men. Through this experiment, we aim to prove this notion.

2. Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?

We documented the reactions of both men and women seeing two people enter a cubicle stall together in their respective public restrooms. The male members of the group also shared a urinal together as this was more public and in theory would garner more reactions. We conducted the research strictly inside the Ateneo for safety purposes and for the privacy of those who will be the subjects of the experiment. The experiment was documented in multiple restrooms found inside the campus, particularly in high traffic places like the restrooms found beside Gonzaga, at the MVP basement, at Sec A, at Leong Hall and Leong Roofdeck. The experiment was mostly conducted within the 10-minute intervals of classes to get the maximum number of people in one restroom. The experiment was also conducted after a NSTP session held in Leong.

To provide contrast to the experiments conducted on campus and ensure a random sample, the group also conducted it at Regis Center along Katipunan avenue. This way, we can also compare the different crowds and how they react.

The group has been divided between the 5 female members and 2 male members. For the female members, two groups with three alternating members would document the experiment for the different women’s restrooms chosen by the group. For the 2 male members, the same process is undergone in male restrooms. However, because there was one male missing to conduct the experiment, we enlisted the help of another male outside of the group for documentation.

3. What were the different reactions of the people? List all the possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

For the females, there were not any disgusted or violent reactions. At most, they would just glance at what we were doing and then go back to their own business. There were some situations that stood out. One girl stared at us in a judging manner when we came out of the cubicle. Another girl looked confused as to why we were going into the same cubicle when there was one open cubicle right next to it. Aside from that, everyone else did not seem to care, proving that it is no big deal for females to see two females in one cubicle.

The judging girl most probably looked at us that way because it seemed strange or new to her for two people to share one cubicle. Some may see it as disgusting for people to share a cubicle. For most women, though, this does not come as something strange. This may come from the idea that women are very open to each other. Sharing a cubicle does not seem like such a big deal to them. Since the lines in women’s restrooms are longer, women sometimes share the same cubicle.

This is not so for male restrooms, however; for the males in the group. Initially, it took more than one attempt to get reactions from people as the two boys entered the cubicle together. In an attempt to make our experiment more public, we shifted to sharing a urinal as well while there were people in the bathroom. Even then, however, save for other bathroom patrons exhibiting signs of being uncomfortable (rigid body movement, etc.) we didn’t get any pronounced reactions immediately. It got to a point where we resorted to almost baiting people for reactions; in the video, the two male members of the group went as far as making fake comments about their genitals so people would hear. We surmised that this was because they knew we were attempting an experiment, as the same people later saw our friends manning the cameras. Eventually, though, after a few tries, we did capture footage of other restroom-goers making faces. One student next to me mouthed profanity to his friend who was washing his hands on the faucet across from us.

However, once we conducted the experiments off-campus at the Regis Center restrooms, we came to realize that the responses we get on campus were still very much tame, since there was still effort put into hiding their reactions. Because of the environment that Ateneo provided (with everyone of more or less the same age bracket), the general population was generally more accepting of behavior that would be considered deviant; a few of them probably sensed that were up to something as well. For both the male and female test groups, though, reactions we got outside of campus were much more pronounced. For the boys, we didn't have much trouble getting immediate reactions out of people compared to doing it in school. It came to a point where we had to tone down the level of our deviant actions as it was likely we would get caught by the center’s security personnel. Because of the nature of our experiment, we tried as much as possible to conduct the experiment in front of employees of the building and not service staff so as not to break any building rules.

In both cases though, the collective reactions we got led us to believe that the existing norm was indeed reaffirmed. Although none of the reactions were established and made explicit, the general consensus based on the looks we got was that the act of sharing cubicles is still largely one that most people would consider unusual at best and disgusting at worst.

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender? Social class? Values/Beliefs of institutions? *You could compare these reactions according to gender, social class*

Based on our findings, we believe that aside from deviating from the norms, the function of gender also comes into play to explain why the men and women reacted very differently and why they reacted in that certain manner during the experiment. From our documentation, it is evident that females seem to be more accepting of two girls sharing the same cubicle compared to men because of their comfortability around other women. Furthermore, men, unlike women, have issues with the “intimacy” of bodily functions, such as staring at someone else who is using a urinal and men sharing the same urinal or cubicle. This is likely because of the fragile male definition of what constitutes masculinity; men tend to be more reserved physically than girls and would rather do their business in restrooms privately.

5. How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms?  Were you hesitant to do the activity?

From the female perspective, the experiment did not feel embarrassing to do. We were not hesitant to do it because we have all experienced doing it before either with friends or siblings, or most of us being from high schools exclusive to girls. We also knew that other girls would not mind us going into a stall together. Though it was deviating from the norm, it did not create any violent reactions from other people so we were comfortable doing it.

From the male perspective, the experiment was a little bit discomforting and awkward because based from our personal experience, men do not usually share the same cubicle together. It is understood and established among men that usage of cubicles and urinals for men is strictly done alone, especially that their privacy is clearly made visible when in one cubicle and the divider in between urinals. At most, men are more open to changing clothes together openly in the bathroom but not sharing a private cubicle together. Furthermore, it was also in a way nerve-wracking because of our fear of being judged by other guys and the fear of being labeled with our deviant behavior because of the rarity of men sharing one cubicle or urinal.  Although there was a little awkwardness while conducting this experiment, we did not hesitate with pushing through with it because of the level of comfortability we have with each other, given we are friends. However, we would have been a little more hesitant if we only knew each other for our Sociology class.  

6. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.

Through this activity, we can see that any form of deviance or behavior that is not conformed to the conventional norms established in and by society is bound to warrant a reaction if expressed openly and publicly. A degree of judgement will always tend to accompany this reaction depending on the relative distance of the act in question from the norm being perceived to be violated, although this entire process is wholly subjective.

SA 21 E - Breaching Experiment by Garcia, Lambo, Ocampo, Salazar, Santiano, and Tolentino

1) What norm did you violate?

We violated the norm of not speaking to strangers in public. We also violated the norm that only people we have connections with (friends, family, or people we make eye contact or dance with in a club) can be given compliments.

2) Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?

Our breaching experiment was talking to strangers in public. When we watched previous breaching experiments done by others, people get alarmed or afraid whenever they are approached by strangers, so we decided to add a twist in our breaching experiment by approaching them while showering them with compliments. We figured that this might be a great thing to do because it’s something positive; something that would make people feel good.

We did the activity at UP Town Center and the places around it. Inside UPTC, we approached walking people and complimented them on their clothes, hair, and basically anything we could develop a conversation from. We would also talk to the friends they were with and asked if they agreed.

3) What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed.

We approached around 20 people and among them, we had 2 very interesting and striking  responses. One was a woman who was really frightened when one of our members went to her. She was running away, and trying to avoid conversation. It was also noted that her face looked like she was “scared to death”. One of our members had to talk to her about it after, but she even asked us to delete the footages we took of her.

Surprisingly, we also met a person who reacted in a really “chill” way. When we complimented him regarding his jacket, he shared that he borrowed his jacket from his friend, and even talked about how expensive it was. We felt like if he wasn’t just passing by he would’ve been willing to entertain us and talk longer.

Most of the reactions we observed were shock, passiveness, and shyness. Most of the people didn’t want to prolong the conversation.

Three people acted as the “intruder”: two girls and one boy, and it is rather interesting to note the differences on how people reacted to a female versus a male. With our female members, the receptions were very relaxed and calm and they even talked. With our male member, the reactions were mostly scared and surprised, and that only fellow males were able to react as calmly.

It is also worthy to note that students, or people who are around our age responded in a more calm way rather than those who were older than we were. The social classes could not be noted down, unless it is an obvious difference like the person’s occupation. Employees we approached were very shy but appreciated the compliments more than those who weren’t.

Those people who kept a conversation after the breach would most likely joke around and ride with the compliment we gave. Most of these people were aware that there was something questionable going on so they asked if we were doing an experiment for school. One even asked right after “social experiment ‘to ‘no?” so the awareness is a factor in people’s reactions.

Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

Based on the video we watched in class about the foreigner who did the hand holding breaching experiment in China, the Filipino people more or less reflected something similar in their reactions. Filipinos are more paranoid in the reactions, just like the Chinese. The audience easily gets startled, and, not to jump into conclusions, but maybe it’s because we are Asian, and as communal Asians, it is difficult to interact with other people who are not part of our own communities. It is not easy for us to interact with strangers and people we are not familiar with; we are more comfortable with the people we know or well within our community. This is why if we did the experiment in school, we would most likely get reactions that would accept our behavior.

The people we approached who tried to escape the situation right away were uncomfortable because it is not usual to be approached by a total stranger and be showered with compliments on your first conversation. Ever since we were children, we were already repeatedly told not to talk to strangers so the deviant act of talking to strangers reinforced the existing norm to avoid conversing with people you don’t know. We saw that most of the people we approached were surprised, tried to escape the situation, or were uncomfortable despite the friendly approach we used. This activity showed us that what we were taught as children to not talk to strangers is carried on until adulthood, and is a norm among the different age groups and social classes. We also noticed that the younger people we approached were more open to conversation, probably because they are more trusting compared to adults.

4) Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.).

As stated previously, there is a gender factor being played in our experiment, even though it is not something we wanted to test. We realized that females get warmer reception from strangers compared to males. With males, only fellow males were more comfortable in riding with the joke and even thank the male for the compliment.

Also as stated previously, there is a social class theme at play, but not as obvious. Employees are more comfortable facing strangers (they work as cashiers and janitors), most probably because it also comes with their jobs to face strangers all the time.

5) How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant to do the activity?

When we thought of this experiment, we were hoping to gather positive reactions from the people. Because who wouldn’t want a random compliment in the midst of their hustling days? However, we noticed that most of them only said “thank you” out of courtesy. We felt like they were really trying their best to escape the situation and instead of feeling positive about it, most of them felt unsafe and threatened.

We were hesitant to do the activity because we’re not entirely sure of how the people would react. After all, we’re both strangers to each other. We looked for people who seemed up for our activity and easy to approach, but it was still difficult because we approached those who were walking and they could easily walk away and escape given the situation.

6) Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.

Over all, this activity has proven that the norm instilled in us to not talk to strangers ever since we were children is hard to deviate from. Even us, who performed the activity and had to approach the strangers were hesitant and uncomfortable because it is not something we’re used to. However, we were glad with some of the reactions we got such as having people engage in a conversation because they seemed to appreciate the compliments given to them and they are different from the typical ones who would hurriedly leave the situation. In general, it is really difficult to deviate from what is usual and what we are used to, although there are also some people who are also open to change and what is unusual.

SA 21 A Chua, Dy, Gecosala, Giroud, Lugtu, Montalbo, Remo

1. What norm did you violate?
1. When using the elevator, the norm is that people enter the elevator then they face the door until they reach their level then get off without any interaction
2. Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?
1. What we did was we entered an elevator with people on it already and when the door closes, we faced the people behind us and stare at them or at the wall behind them. So instead of facing the elevator door, we were facing the other way. We did this both inside and outside the the school to present a better comparison. Inside the school, we did the experiment at the CTC and the Rizal Library elevators. Outside, the experiment was done in SM Berkeley and SM Blue.
3. What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?
1. CTC- We were able to observe 3 people while doing the experiment here. One male student just glanced at us from time to time until he got off. Two female students did not even notice the experiment as they were talking. And a female professor was hesitant and she moved to the corner when she entered, then she moved near the door when she was getting off so as to get out more quickly.
1. The reaction of the male student was expected since the experiment creates an “unusual” atmosphere inside the elevator because normally, there are no interactions between strangers inside the elevator
2. The reactions of the two female students show that the effectiveness of the experiment decreases when there are interactions between the participants, in this case, among friends.
3. The reaction of the female professor was also expected. She was as if almost frightened. When we were looking at her, she switched positions. Then when getting off, she made the effort to move closer to the elevator doors to get out as quickly as possible. This highlights the norms in place when using the elevator
4. Overall, in CTC,  the experiment reaffirms the existing norm

1. SM Berkeley - we were able to observe two people of the opposite sex. Both were feeling uncomfortable when we were doing the experiment. The man looked at us as if he were going to start a fight or an argument, but he was not able to because he had to leave the elevator already. The woman on the other hand, tried to move to different locations inside the elevator and continued to feel uncomfortable since we were following her.
1. Both of the reactions showed signs that there was something different about the happening inside the elevator. There was clearly a reaction that does not appear when no experiment is conducted.
2. The experiment was clearly effective because we were able to get what we expected of them.
3. Kids will only look once and not mind the activity again, but for adults and young adults, they will try to be discreet when they look at the person doing the experiment.

https://youtu.be/UeWLNB45Uko

1. SM Blue - We were able to observe two people during the experiment. They were clearly friends, or at least knew each other. The experiment was done in between them which made the situation more awkward. Both passengers giggled at one point and tried to make small talk to hold their laughter in.

                       i.              The reactions observed were expected due to the awkward nature of this  

                      experiment.

                     ii.               The experiment was a success because it proved that the common norm  

                      of looking towards the elevator door instead of the wall was breached  

                      when the subject passengers expressed unease.

                     iii.             The norm of not making interaction with strangers, however, persisted

                      when the subjects tried to pay no attention to the individual conducting       

                      the experiment despite the proximity.

               

4. Rizal Lib - We were able to observe two sets of people composed of groups, individuals, staff, and students. The first batch, made of individual students, were observed to be very wary to the environment and started to look for things that may explain why this certain situation is happening. The second batch, made of individual staff and groups of student, were observed to be less noticing of the environment and more focused on what they were doing. The staff was carrying a movable shelf, while the group of students were talking to each other.
1. The reactions of individuals differ from groups. When people were together they would not notice surroundings or rather just disregard them. However, when individuals reacted they were more cautious of what was happening and react accordingly.
2. People who are distracted tend to not mind the surroundings but rather focus on what they were tasked to do.
3. As compared to the students the experiment had less impact to the staff, this is most likely due to the number of these experiments they have encountered during their stay in the Ateneo

https://youtu.be/im8BNoowvZ0

https://youtu.be/3hGyoMbb324

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms/roles), social class (norms of the rich and the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.)
1. Peer groups also affect how one would react to certain stimulus, as seen on the experiment. When people enter in groups there is little to no reaction between them and their environment and the interaction tends to stay within the group. However when one react to the stimulus the whole group would react to the stimulus.

5. How did you feel when you did the experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant to do the activity?
1. We were definitely hesitant to do the experiment because we had no idea what to expect. We had no idea what to tell the people if they would react violently. The task of recording the whole experiment definitely gave us second thoughts if we would still pursue the task. We already had an idea in the back of our minds that  there is a possibility that people would report us to the authority for invading privacy or recording without consent.
2. It was rather uncomfortable and felt awkward to do something that is generally not considered  “normal”, especially in a public area. In fact, it was embarrassing.

6. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.
1. People definitely change their actions if there is something new or unusual in norms in society. Conducting an experiment on people I see everyday (Neighbors in the condominium), I could tell that there really were differences in their actions when we conducted the experiment. In other words, there were reactions whether may it be positive or negative if people experience something new in life.

SA21 A: ALBA, CAMBRI, CRUZ, GO, LLORIN

White Board Communication

Describe the breaching experiment

Our group performed an experiment in which we communicated with each other solely with a whiteboard and a marker. We went to places in and out of the campus and interacted with people using the messages on the whiteboard. We performed this experiment inside campus, specifically at SEC-walk, Gonzaga Cafeteria, and the JSEC Challenge at the Red Brick Road. We also talked to the caretaker of a K-9 dog we saw at the Old Rizal Library using this experiment. Outside the campus, we went to KFC and Fully Booked in Katipunan. The experiment was inspired by the anime Special A. The character Megumi would write on a sketchpad or a whiteboard to communicate to others, and she was perceived as a weirdo for this.





What norm did you violate?

The group thinks that this experiment challenged the norm of able-bodiedness, as well as the everyday experience of communicating through speech.

What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

It was a bit funny to see the reactions of people we purposely chose to approach. One thing that we noticed is that people would respond to us using gestures, or softer speech than they are accustomed to. In one instance, a group member asked the caretaker of a K-9 dog, who was talking loudly at that time, if she can pet the dog. It took a little while for the guard to read and to process the request, but she then replied with a nod and her mouth was hanging open in a sort of shocked way.

We also observed that when we wrote to each other in places around Ateneo, people didn’t mind us so much. There were some who gave us weird looks, but they just continued with what they were doing. One group member proposed that maybe this reaction was due to the culture here in Ateneo. Ateneans are used to seeing and tolerating a few colorful characters, such as people who dress up with loud and foreign clothes. There’s this idea that since Ateneans are free to express themselves as they like, it’s easier to respect those who are a bit strange. 

As for the people outside Ateneo, such as those people who sat near us in KFC, their shock was a bit more obvious. They were talking loudly when we arrived, but when they saw the way we were communicating with each other, they started speaking softly. They would also stare at us openly- such as the mother and her young daughter who sat next to us. The man seated on another nearby table was outright reading our conversation, but we pretended not to notice him.

We also tried to speak to people directly. Those among the people in the JSEC challenge would call us loudly to try the food from their stalls. We would write a message, and many actually waited for our response. Even people we knew were surprised and answered us with a softer voice. Admittedly, when we approached people who we are friends with, they were more shocked, owing to them knowing us personally.

The cashiers at Fully Booked, KFC, and Chicks Rule were all very polite to us. We noticed that the ate and the kuya at Chicks Rule were laughing a little bit. We also asked to be shown a book at Fully Booked, and the cashier was hesitant to use her voice so she gestured at us. The cashiers at KFC were the most efficient in understanding the situation. We wrote our orders on the whiteboard, and they complied at once and read them. One of the cashiers went so far as to write “Drinks?” on the whiteboard. We debriefed this cashier and the ones who assisted us at Fully Booked. We asked if they were surprised at us, but they said it was an ordinary occurrence for them to serve deaf customers who would communicate by typing messages on their phone. We expected that they would not be as surprised as other people due to their experience in serving customers.

Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich and the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group)?

As mentioned above, there was a difference in the reactions of the people in and outside the Ateneo. People in Ateneo gave more subtle reactions compared to the reactions of the people outside Ateneo, which were more obvious. We think that Ateneans are used to seeing people do “unusual” things (we’re not the first group to do breaching experiments in campus), unlike the people outside who are more used to “normal” interactions. Gender may have also played a role here. We observed that the women who noticed us were more sensitive in responding to us and letting us be, unlike the men beside us at KFC who are obviously reading our conversation through the whiteboards. Additionally, it was interesting to note that the little girl next to us looked more curious, rather than her parents who looked a little judgmental.

How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant to do this activity?

It was a fun experience for the group, but it was a little bit embarrassing. It was also embarrassing since we are not used to getting unwanted attention from the crowd. We were concerned since we wore our IDs outside school and we could be identifiable the next time we stopped by KFC, or that someone might film us and make us viral on social media. We also realized how convenient life truly is with the power of speech, because it took us so long to write our messages and have other people read it. We gained sympathy for Ariel, the Disney character, because it was hard to not say anything for a long period of time.

SA 21 - G (UNTAL)

Breaching Video: https://youtu.be/ISCMzt5kRu8

1. What norm did you violate?

          In my breaching activity I violated two norms, the first being not to give/accept things from strangers and the second being obscuring sanitary napkins from sight when in public places.

2. Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?

          I did my experiment within the campus, in Regis and Trinoma. I approached people and stretched out my arm with a sanitary napkin/ a pack of sanitary napkins in hand. Initially I didn’t say anything unless they would ask what it was to which I would respond, “napkin po.” If they didn’t want to accept it I walked away without saying anything else.

3. What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

I received numerous reactions, many of them being negative in nature.

·         One person walked away very abruptly after seeing what I was giving

·         They would look around hesitantly and sometimes looked embarrassed before asking what I was doing/giving

·         Some people just gave a nervous smile and said “hindi po”

·         When males were beside/ near the vicinity of the person I was giving the sanitary napkin to they would quickly look away

·         Eyes would widen or people would furrow their eyebrows and look at me like I was a freak before sending me away

More positive reactions included:

·         Laughing or smiling when they saw it

·         Looking very confused but politely asked what I was doing or why I was giving the napkin to them

·         Girl companions of a boy laughed and took snapchat videos of the breaching

          I feel like these reactions definitely reinforced the existing norms and due to the fact that the experiment challenged two prevalent norms, the reactions were compounded. For the most part I think that the hesitant reactions stemmed from them being uncomfortable in the given scenario. Some people were immediately turned off by the idea of a stranger approaching them to give them something which is why they quickly stormed away. People obviously weren’t used to what I was doing, and if they were more patient with the idea of a stranger giving them something, the sanitary napkin made the situation more discomforting. 

          For the most part they would hesitantly look around before engaging with me which felt like their way of looking for someone to comfort them in this situation. After I would say that I was giving them a sanitary napkin they would quickly shake their heads and say they didn’t want it, which allows me to believe that talking about sanitary napkins in public is really a taboo.

         One group in particular who laughed and took videos of me giving the napkin to a boy said they found it funny because of the fact that I was giving it to a guy and that usually when girls ask for sanitary napkins they give it discretely. 

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.).

BY GENDER

            Gender played a huge part in my breaching experiment. Some females’ eyes widened upon seeing me take out the sanitary napkin. Some of them looked embarrassed and surprised when I brought out the napkin especially when males were also present. They really wanted me to go away after telling them that it was a sanitary napkin. Many of them looked confused and told me that they weren’t on their periods.

             Most males looked very confused and say that they don’t use napkins when I was handing them the sanitary napkin. One in particular tried to reach for it but when I told him what it was he quickly retracted his hand. The other had thought that I overheard their conversation and gave him a napkin because he was on his “man period.” I also discovered that when directly targeted the males would more often laugh when they found out what it was; however, the males that were merely on the sidelines quickly looked away upon realizing what I was doing.

            While representatives from both the male and female demographic looked embarrassed/ discomforted by the breaching activity I found that women actually make a bigger deal about sanitary napkins than males. This is probably because women have lived under the norm that sanitary napkins really shouldn’t be brought out in public spaces.

BY AGE

            I feel that the two age groups which were part of the experiment really displayed different reactions. The younger people (roughly 25 and below) were more willing to engage despite me being a stranger. Although some were hesitant, the demographic in general was more open to asking what I was doing and even slightly reached for the sanitary napkin. These people also found what I was doing more amusing, or were able to poke fun at the situation.

           The older demographic either looked at me badly then walked me away or made me go away within the first few seconds of the encounter.  They also appeared displeased by my publicly displaying the sanitary napkin as they looked at me as if what I was doing was inappropriate.

            Although the younger people still subscribe to the norms, they’re more relaxed about such than their older counterparts.

BY SOCIAL CLASS/LOCATION

The people I encountered at Trinoma, I would say reside in the middle to lower middle class and the ones that I approached in Regis and in Ateneo are of the upper middle to upper class. The people I approached in Trinoma were less trusting and curter than the people I approached on campus and Regis.

I’m not actually sure if this should be attributed to social class but I feel it is better attributed to the location. More people were willing to engage within the vicinity of Ateneo as to some extent they to some extent perceived me as a student whereas in Trinoma, I feel it was difficult for people to want to engage with a complete stranger.

5. How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant to do the activity?

I’m naturally a very shy person, so this really pushed me out of my comfort zone. At first I felt really excited to do the activity but I became really embarrassed after the first breaching. I felt really uncomfortable standing in front of someone with a napkin in my hand, and I just wanted them to react as quickly as possible so I could get it over with. Despite being embarrassed, I continued doing the activity but when I received the reaction of someone looking at me like I was a freak before storming off, I felt really traumatized and disheartened. I didn’t want to do the activity anymore because I didn’t like the feeling of other people perceiving me as “weird.” It took some time before I was ready to do the activity again. Although I was aware that my breaching experiment was out of the ordinary I didn’t expect to receive such negative reactions and I didn’t realize how much I could really be affected by informal controls.

Coming from my experience in Trinoma I was more hesitant to do the breaching activity in Regis and at school but due to the fact that my first interaction in that setting was a positive one, I became more comfortable and less hesitant do the following encounters. I found myself looking forward to the reactions that I would receive.

6. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.

·         I discovered that when people are faced with things that are out of the ordinary they attempt to find affirmation of comfort in other people by looking around.

·         On-lookers are drawn to watch norms being broken but quickly avert their attention in what I believe to be fear of being drawn into the situation.

·         I found informal controls really come about when deviating from norms and on my part I felt them to be incredibly effective in deterring deviants from pursuing future deviations. 

·         No one actually took or even touched the sanitary napkin, which further establishes the norm that these feminine products are still considered a taboo in the public setting.